Three strikes reform advances

A proposed ballot measure aimed at reforming California's three strikes law has made it past an important hurdle.

Attorney General Kamala Harris' office has approved the bill's language — crafted by Stanford law professors — allowing backers to begin collecting signatures to get the measure on the June 2012 ballot.

Supporters say the measure could end up saving taxpayers $100 million per year in reduced incarceration and prosecution costs.

The proposed measure differs from past efforts to change the law that went into effect after voters approved it in 1994.

Under the three strikes law, offenders who commit serious, violent crimes can have their sentences doubled if convicted of a second "strike" and can receive 25 years to life in prison on their third strike.

The third strike, unlike the first two, does not have to be a serious or violent crime — and it is that aspect that has drawn the most criticism.

"I think the three strikes law is too broad," said retired Monterey County judge and prosecutor John Phillips. "Part of the problem was taking some of the discretion away from the court and giving it to prosecutors. Some jurisdictions — I think ours is one of them — have been pretty responsible in applying the third strike to serious crimes. But a lot haven't done that, and now we have a lot of people in prison for minor crimes."

Monterey County District Attorney Dean Flippo could not be reached Friday, but in an earlier interview he credited the law with lowering crime rates around the state.

"Crime rates have been going down, down, down. I attribute it to harsher sentencing ... along with mobilization of communities" toward prevention and intervention efforts, Flippo said last month.

Unlike some district attorneys in California, Flippo has maintained a written three strikes policy for years.

While it encourages prosecutors to file strikes whenever possible, the policy allows them to dismiss potential strikes if there are "compelling" considerations, such as multiple strikes stemming from the same incident, if many years have passed since the strikes occurred, or if the defendant has had a crime-free record for 10 years.

The new proposed ballot measure requires that the third strike be a serious, violent crime. The only exception is in the case of convicted murderers, rapists and child molesters, who can still be sentenced to 25 to life for less serious felonies.

The measure would also allow certain inmates convicted under non-serious third strikes to petition for re-sentencing.

"I think that proposition brings the three strikes law into what the electorate thought they were voting for," said Phillips, who retired as a judge in 2004. "If people had understood what it costs to keep all these people in prison with no hope of getting out, I don't think they would have approved it."

More than 8,000 third strikers are serving life sentences in California, and officials estimate that one-quarter of them were convicted of non-serious, nonviolent crimes.

Defense attorney Miguel Hernandez agreed with Phillips that using minor crimes for third strikes is a tactic rarely applied in Monterey County.

But he said the threat of that third strike for a minor crime still has a coercive effect.

"It is used as pressure — almost to the point of extortion — for obtaining a plea," he said.

Regarding the proposed reforms, he said, "I'm thrilled to see some sensibility come to the sentencing arena."

Proponents of the new measure, now officially titled "The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012," must collect more than 500,000 valid signatures for it to qualify for the June ballot.

· Require that "murderers, rapists and child molesters" serve life sentences, even if convicted of a minor third strike crime.

· Except for those exceptions, it would "restore the three strikes law to the public's original understanding by requiring life sentences only when a defendant's current conviction is for a violent or serious crime."

· "Save hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars every year for at least 10 years" because the state will no longer finance housing and long-term health care for elderly, low-risk inmates serving life for minor crimes.